Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

Disfellowshipped for not preaching

The article states under Coercion,

those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism (currently around seventeen hours per month in the United States) soon lose the respect of their co-religionists and may even be disfellowshipped

I wonder where Holden got this information from. Can someone point to the JW publication that state that a person can get disfellowshipped for not preaching? If not it should be removed or explained correctly. A person can get disfellowshipped on the grounds of apostasy if he is vocally critical of the requirement to preach, but not simply by the act of halted preaching. (they are labeled inactive). An accurate statement would be, "those who stop evangelism and don't consider preaching to be Biblical requirement for Christians may even be disfellowshipped. -- ShaunRex (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I have heard it many times straight from the elders' mouths. I know this does not count for much here, except that after all it is the truth and perfectly common knowledge among anyone who's ever dealt with or has been part of JW. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A92A:8DDE:B801:6690 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read Holden's book but my understanding is that he interviewed people and attended JW meetings as part of his research. In any case, it's a suitable source. It is not necessary for points to be verifiable in a "JW publication", particularly where there may be a motivation to not clearly tell members something that may be unfavourable. The JW definition of 'brazen conduct' is also kind of a 'catch all' for someone who does anything the elders don't approve of, so if someone adamantly refuses to 'preach', even if they are not otherwise 'teaching contrary to JW teachings', it could result in disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel bad for people getting disfellowshipped for not preaching. Enlightening. No problem in keeping it. --ShaunRex (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

“I haven't read Holden's book but my understanding is that he interviewed people and attended JW meetings as part of his research. In any case, it's a suitable source”

If one hasn’t read or is vaguely informed on a subject, keeping quiet or research are the better options. I have read Holdens book and it’s several hours (of indulgent long winded pontification) that I’ll never get back. It’s littered with incorrect statements about jw’s due to his acknowledged naivety in the intro of the book. In Holdens defense his book’s primary purpose is not to be a thoroughly researched, factual analysis of the beliefs, procedures and policies of jw. His chosen methodology invites a measure of factual errors as any reader of his book would know.

Jeffro you write ”The JW definition of 'brazen conduct' is also kind of a 'catch all' for someone who does anything the elders don't approve of, so if someone adamantly refuses to 'preach', even if they are not otherwise 'teaching contrary to JW teachings', it could result in disfellowshipping”

Total nonsense. I’m surprised ShaunRex conceded to an altogether shallow and uninformed response. Ignorance rarely results in enlightenment. What Jeffro describes above is at best defined as brazen “non-conduct” and substantially irrelevant to the falsity of the quote anyway.

Of greater relevance than the uninformed response to a legitimate objection re the inclusion of an untrue quote, both the objection and response miss the serious degree of the error of the quote.

The quote reads “those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism... and may even be disfellowshipped”

The quote mentions an “amount of time” (quite evidently not zero), but it’s unsatisfactory, and therefore the claim that an amount of time below 17 hours per month may result in disfellowshipping. The quote is bogus and should be removed. Jeffro, just because an academic writes a book it doesn’t mean an editor switches off his brain and accepts everything written therein as factual. Because sometimes even nonsense walks on stilts.

Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, incorrect. JWs consider 'preaching' to be a 'scriptural obligation', so if someone "adamantly refuses" to preach (note that I did not just say 'doesn't preach'), openly contradicting the claim that 'preaching' is a 'requirement', it is no great stretch at all for elders, particularly but not exclusively if they have a dislike for someone, to say the person is "spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth" (Shepherd the Flock of God, 2019 revision, page 90), which is specifically listed as an 'offence' for forming a 'judicial committee', which may result in disfellowshipping. Holden does not simply assert that 'those who preach less than 17 hours may be disfellowshipped', which is your own selective misreading. Instead, 17 hours is simply given as the US average at a particular time, and Holden's main point in the sentence is that those who preach less than the average lose respect of the group (demonstrated by the use of pejorative jargon such as 'irregular' and 'inactive'); Holden then only adds afterwards that it "may even" result in disfellowshipping, indicating that to be an extreme case rather than typical. The JW biblical encyclopaedia, Insight on the Scriptures, associates refusal to preach with their pejorative use of the term 'apostate' (volume 1, page 127, "While still making profession of faith in God’s Word, apostates may forsake his service by treating lightly the preaching and teaching work that he assigned to followers of Jesus Christ"), so it is not just some novel conclusion I (or Holden) have made up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Holden, in fact, made no such claim. The original statement correctly attributed to Holden (although with a spelling error) was added in May 2017. The words "and may even be disfellowshipped" were added in August 2017 by a different editor. That editor also added the reference to "17 hours" being reported in the US, which seems quite high and in any case is irrelevant. I'll remove those words for which Holden is wrongly cited as a source. BlackCab (TALK) 11:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the extended quote introduced by PaleoNeonate does reflect the original source.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. You've provided a link to what seems to be the 2003 edition of the book. I have the 2005 edition, which does not include those words. It's quite possible Holden himself considered the statement inaccurate and removed it. BlackCab (TALK) 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The additional wording also appears in the 2012 revison.[2] On closer examination, it appears that Routledge republished the 2002 version in 2012. Please update the Holden citation at the bottom of the article with the correct ISBN for the 2005 version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear whether it is actually a "2012 revision" you're linking to or simply an e-book release of an outdated edition. Amazon offers a download to an edition dated 12 November, 2012, but if that's the same version we are looking at online at your link, the opening page of the book says "This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003." My physical copy of the book, which I bought around 2009, states that it was "first published 2002, reprinted 2002, 2004, 2005," which tells me it's a more recent version. It would have been nice if Holden had noted somewhere, either in the printed or e-book version, that it was updated. Either he added or removed those words. BlackCab (TALK) 12:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see previous comment. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that a JW who outspokenly refuses to preach may indeed be 'disfellowshipped' for 'apostasy'. However, I have no problem citing a more recent version of Holden. It is entirely possible that Holden later considered the statement to be potentially misleading without elaboration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that you’ve replaced adamantly with outspokenly, brazen (non)conduct with apostasy. Even turning a blind eye to such slow of hand argumentation and it’s irrelevance to the Holden quote (now appropriately removed after some quick fire edit warring to keep it in), the stretch of dominos/hypothetical scenarios required to fall in causative succession are misaligned and at considerable distance from one another to land anywhere near such a preformulated conclusion. This author lives for needless elaboration. He writes: “Babies who persistently cry are taken out of meetings (usually by the mother, unless she is absent).” And elsewhere: “In fact, without these aids it would be impossible for the Society to hold its meetings in their current format.” That’s right, without the watchtower, the society couldn’t have a watchtower study.. Try the Occamian approach - Holden removed it because it was wrong. Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

“It is entirely possible that Holden later considered the statement to be potentially misleading without elaboration, further speculation about why it was removed is pointless” Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just ranting, which is not helpful. The statement has been removed as it does not appear in a later version of Holden's book. Your misleading juxtaposition of two separate statements of mine is plainly disruptive. As previously stated, Holden may have removed the statement because it may have been misleading without elaboration, but further speculation about why it was removed is pointless, and your dislike of Holden's editorial style is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This persistent need to be right is both embarrassing and entertaining to watch. Deleting, moving, revising content and order of comments on talk pages and whining on mine. Placing your two statements together accurately represents your written view, theres nothing linguistically mysterious going on. Your revised sentence (which was not "previously stated", another undesirable editorial style) above, if we’re all writing & reading English, says it too - any further speculation apart from your own is pointless.

You have my permission to move this comment wherever you like in the thread so that yours resounds finality. IC (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting someone else's text without elaboration or response is unconstructive, and demonstrates that you either intended to prove some irrelevant point for your own amusement or simply goad another editor. In either case, this is inappropriate as Wikipedia is not a forum. Article Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to articles. If you have a disagreement with an editor, contact them at their user Talk page, or use Wikipedia's various avenues for dispute resolution where appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ivan Cedrovi, Just noted you comment on my response. I knew that the statement was wrong for sure. I left that comment telling in my mind "if that would make you happy". I don't have the interest, time or energy to outlast critical editors with a burning zeal for their personal views. I prefer to stay away from conflicts. Thanks for your work on this. ShaunRex (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This kind of comment belongs at the other editor's Talk page, not here. Also, referring to other editors has having a "burning zeal for their personal views" is verging on a personal attack, and is in any case inappropriate here.

Okay.ShaunRex (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that if a JW refuses to preach, it could lead to them being disfellowshipped, and as previously stated, this is not the same as what would happen for simply not preaching, and the suggestion that a JW would be disfellowshipped for simply not preaching (without advocating that it is not required) was a false characterisation by other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I read your response, but my reply would be pointless since the disputed text appeared to be removed already. ShaunRex (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. BlackCab and I discussed the sources and it was determined that Holden's later edition of his book omitted the statement so it was no longer necessary to include. Ivan Cedrovi's comments were counter productive to the thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Coercion - ECHR Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and others v. Russia

The comment below is a misrepresentation of the statements of the ECHR and is personal research.

However, the court acknowledged that coercion by the group to reject blood transfusion may be involved, stating "even though the Jehovah's Witnesses whose opposition to blood transfusions was cited in evidence were adults having legal capacity to refuse that form of treatment, the findings of the Russian courts can be understood to mean that their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community. The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern.

The court certainly did not acknowledge that coercion by the group to reject blood transfusions may be involved, that statement belies their conclusion. The statement of the ECHR in section 138 is simply an acceptance that when health and life is at stake the genuineness of the patients refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern. The patient here is not a Jehovahs Witness patient but the patient referred to under Russian law - The ECHR states in the preceding section 137: "The Fundamentals of Russian Legislation on Health Protection explicitly provide for the patient's right to refuse medical treatment or to request its discontinuation on condition that they have received full and accessible information about the possible consequences of that decision. Patients are not required to give reasons for the refusal." After referring to a few court cases not involving Jehovah's Witnesses (England & Wales, Greece) ECHR specifically returns to the baseless conclusion of the Russian courts regarding their judgement (iii) Encouragement of suicide or the refusal of medical assistance. They state in section 139 "Turning to the instant case, the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied."

Read the opinion https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{

IC (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The statement about concern of coercion is supported by the quoted text, but it is not necessary to include what might be very loosely construed as 'personal research'. I have restored the quote from the court document, which stands on its own merits without the need of additional interpretation. The court document directly acknowledges the possibility that Jehovah's Witnesses' "refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community". The claim that the document was taken out of context is blatantly incorrect. The fact that the court did not find that coercion was specifically evident in the Russian court's findings in a specific case does not contradict the court's acceptance that coercion may occur. The claim that the document arbitrarily switches from talking about JWs to patients in some entirely unrelated sense is bizarre.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming from your comments that as per usual you haven't bothered reading the source material before furnishing an opinion.

Section 139 "Turning to the instant case, the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency situation, which is borne out by the fact that they had prepared for emergencies by filling out “No Blood” cards and carrying them in their purses. There is no evidence that they wavered in their refusal of a blood transfusion upon admission to hospital. Accordingly, there is no factual basis supporting the finding that their will was overborne or that the refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision."

The selective quote promotes the erroneous conflation of opinion between the two Courts as though ECHR opinion conceded the Russian courts judgement on "encouragement of suicide". This part of the ECHR opinion, indeed presented out of context, was unpacking the thinking behind the Russian court's judgement.

I would encourage you to read the entire ECHR judgement. Based on previous commentary from you here, you may unenviably find yourself agreeing with some of the allegations of the Russian prosecution and subsequent judgements of the Russian courts against jw, vigorously overturned by the ECHR. Hopefully will go some distance to mitigating your bias.

The ECHR did not accept that coercion may occur. They said in section 138 "The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern." They proceed with their judgement quoted above (section 139), antithetical to any suggestion of coercion.

IC (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the quote. After reading the decision, the quote, which refers to the JW's (not, as claimed, to some other broader definition of "patients") is appropriate in the context of this page. It is useful to balance out the idea that the court essentially said "Russia was completely wrong", suggested by the opening quotes, with the more accurate picture that the court said that while Russia was in this case wrong, the idea that coercion may have existed is a legitimate excersize and concern of Russia's application of the law. Doing so accords with WP:NPOV: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." While this is just one source, rather than multiple, the same standard need be applied. At the very least, this will need a consensus to be removed. As of now only Ivan and Jeffro (and now myself) have talked about it. We need more opinions before a properly sourced quote is removed. Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm presuming you're aware that this case is the one where the ECHR finds nothing, no form of, no factual basis for coercion. In fact, they find just the opposite, a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfer.

The reason the opening quotes "essentially say "Russia was completely wrong"" is because that's the unambiguous judgement of the ECHR. That may not align with this ed committees preconceptions, but facts - or no facts in this case - don't exist to validate preconceptions. This subjective effort to "balance out" the clear verdict of the ECHR (even based on deficiency of sentence & context comprehension) is grossly disproportionate, and in actual fact irrelevant to jw given the ECHR judgement.

Take another look at the diametrically opposed decisions.

The Russian court decides: "their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community".

The ECHR judgement states: "the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions.... Accordingly, there is no factual basis supporting the finding that their will was overborne or that the refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision."

The Russian court in the opinion of the ECHR, was completely wrong, right? Are you suggesting they were only partially wrong? So, let me see if I understand your non partisan quest for "balance". ECHR determined that the Russian courts reached a decision based on nothing, with no evidence. In fact, they found evidence to the contrary. However, the Court that emphatically denies "any form" of coercion, also suggests that coercion may exist? Nonsense. Characterising this as the view of the ECHR to those unfamiliar with the context is in the interests of avoiding editorial bias? IC (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I imagine it must be difficult to have any actual conversation with you as you appear to believe any form of disagreement implies a bias against you. Regardless, I have said my piece, and will wait for further editors opinions. Vyselink (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would choose not to say anymore either if I had said your piece.

I’ve elucidated your confirmation bias whilst you “imagine” what it would be like to answer the source based questions - Was the Russian court’s verdict completely wrong or only partially wrong? Is it “more accurate” to promote a false balance, “However, the Court also stated that”? In parsing ECHR judgement, is it reasonable to assert that the same court that emphatically denies “any form” of coercion, also concedes that coercion may exist? (the general sense no option of course, since both you and Jeffro have already agreed in analyzing the sentence “such circumstances..the patient..refuse medical treatment..legitimate concern” applies singularly to jw)

Now, whilst your response is ad hominem, I’ve actually engaged with the source itself to reveal yours and Jeffro’s bias causing miseducation here, and elsewhere where you’ve both taken it along for the ride.

I’m on tenterhooks waiting for another member of this very small BOF ed com to surprise me by making up the very low single digit “objective consensus”, so that beyond methodological systemic bias, this committee can flock together to further embed bias into the plethora of superfluous articles on jw. IC (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You are plainly wrong. The court document refers to "their refusals", explicitly indicated in the same sentence as the refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses, and directly states that those persons' refusals may be a result of "pressure exerted on them by the applicant community". Your misdirection about whether the Russian court's verdict in the specific case was "completely wrong or only partially wrong" is entirely irrelevant to the European Court's more general acceptance that coercion may still occur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Where do you shop for your straw men? IC (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant nonsense aside, there is no consensus for your requested change. The article directly quotes the source without any additional interpretation and the statement from the source is unambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your declarations are underpinned by very poor argumentation. Straw-manning another’s arguments is the very definition of irrelevant.

The adverb “however” after the unambiguous, no coercion verdict of the ECHR is highly interpretive.

I’m almost impressed with your ability to parse the Russian courts verdict, some points lost since they’re arguably ideological comrades of yours on the subject of jw, many more due to the fact that the sentence could easily be understood by most school children and was never in question.

Where they might struggle is where you also do. ECHR switches from plural to singular - “adults..their..them..” to “the patient” in the very next sentence. School children might also be ignorant of the significance of the ECHR’s use of language extracted from Russian law and applicable generically - the patient’s refusal of medical treatment, along with the qualifier “in such situations”.

Is the ECHR referring to the applicants? Not to anyone with even a mediocre grasp of word usage and English grammar.

Your insistence that “legitimate concern” essentially means may occur further reveals your struggle with language. Your buffet style response to the question cascade ignored the rebuttal to vyselink’s ill considered position and conveniently, the most pertinent question.

Here it is in the form of yours and vyselink’s untenable position: The Court (ECHR) that found nothing to suggest that any form of coercion was applied and no factual basis supporting the finding of the Russian Court (that their will was overborne or their refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision), contradicted their own clear, unambiguous judgement by conceding that coercion may have existed.

Are you aware of any court that would render such a ludicrous decision?

“We find nothing to suggest he committed the crime, in fact we only found evidence to the contrary. But, maybe he did it”

IC (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your tendentious interpretation of the use of a hypothetical patient is ridiculous, and shows little regard for the actual context of the statement. Your summarising strawman argument is just as irrelevant. Back in reality, it's more like, "We have not seen direct evidence of coercion in the specific facts presented in this case, but we acknowledge that the Russian court's broader concerns are warranted and that it is possible that coercion may occur in other cases." Your claim that the insertion of the word "However" constitutes 'original research' is laughable, and the removal of that term makes no difference to the substance of the statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Montana

I have removed an addition related to a Montana court overturning a previous ruling. The insertion was out of place in the section, which makes no mention of specific court cases. The Montana court ruling is not an overarching vindication of Jehovah's Witnesses' policies regarding child abuse and should not be used in such a broad manner at this article, especially in isolation from other court findings. If the section at this article is to contain information about specific court rulings, it would necessarily include details about other prominent cases such as the Australian Royal Commission. However, adequate coverage at this more general criticism article would probably constitute undue weight. Details about specific court cases—including the recent Montana ruling—are covered at Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, which is already linked in the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Additions to the social criticisms section

Hello. I recently added some material to the social criticisms section that was taken down and I would like to discuss with you what could be done with the material to make it stand. Even if not at the same depth. I had already removed the section mentioning reddit in my submission. This was my first submission, done for a college research project in the scope of religious ideas. I was unclear of the policies surrounding sources of that nature, but I completely understand the removal of such material.

If there is some way that my other changes can stay in some facet, whether that be with additional sources, eliminating certain parts/sources, or a moderate restructuring of the material, please let me know. Overall, I feel I had additions that can, in some way, fit in the context of the page and how the editors see fit. I had long discussions with my professor about the potential of my submissions being removed on an article with a controversial nature, so while this was not the response I hoped for, it was one I expected. -- Skymanmartin (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is one of those times we want to be real careful to carefully and neutrally present the issues. I have additionally asked for User:BlackCab for assistance. They are probably one of the most clear editors that works in this area. I am going to look through and make my suggestions too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• "This position of subservience appears more evident in Watchtower publications that discuss stories of women who choose to stay with abusive husbands." is WP:Synth IMO. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Parents are encouraged to inflict corporal punishment on children" should be sourced to something more concrete then Huffpost
• "well-known psychological impact" should link to something academic, preferably a peer reviewed study" again Huffpost just doesn't carry weight for me in this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Sources like [[3]] should be used with care, this is hardly a neutral article and while they have a right to their feelings we can't take their personal testimony as fact to present for everyone and it seems more a personal testimony. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• "This wording indicates that Steve had also become a Witness, but not whether or not the abusive behavior halted after this conversion." This is a WP:SYNTH. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • So with areas regarding WP:Synth, would I be better off eliminating this material or restructuring the statements so as to not group positions together? I should be able to find more reliable sources better than HuffPost regarding some of your other comments with some digging. Thank you for providing me with the information that you have so far, it’s greatly appreciated. I want to see some of my submission make it but I also value neutrality and careful wording. I will wait to see further comments from you and other users before I begin to make changes with my submission, and will run them by you all in this talk page prior to posting. -- Skymanmartin (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Anything that we are adding, not explicitly stated in the source, would be considered WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR. The only other reasons I was objecting to the testimonials is because we give WP:UNDUE weight to those subjective experiences that may or may not be notable. I mean notable in the wikipedia sense and not the personal sense. Again I agree by the way of experience some of your additions. I'm not saying you've done poorly just saying we need to tweak the presentation a bit for here. Lots of links there but the big ones I see is possible WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information you’ve provided thus far. I am going to hold for comments from the other user you had mentioned, and I will begin the revision process. I’ve already been thinking on some ways that I can correct the issues that you have provided links to. I’ll be sure to keep in contact with you all on this page as I do so. This is a graded portion of my assignment, but I value the integrity of Wikipedia and want to make sure my submission fits, just as you and the other editors do! -- Skymanmartin (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

After my initial takedown and brief explanation at your User Talk page, the material that you restored (that has once again been removed) followed the same basic format of 'Watchtower leaders say x and other sources generally say x is bad'. That approach is not appropriate because the sources do not explicitly criticise JWs, and you are drawing conclusions in the article instead. Probably with the exception of Hassan, pretty much all of the sources you have used are either JW sources (which are not criticism), general sources that aren't about JWs at all, or otherwise anecdotal sources. A suitable section would need to provide sources that provide direct criticism of JW beliefs/practices, and those sources must also meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion—so, things like academic journals in fields such as sociology of religion and psychology rather than your own conclusions or other personal testimonies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The objections raised by Jeffro and Hellinabucket are on-point. Wikipedia content must be based on reliable secondary sources rather than advancing a position based on an assortment of sources. So far I don't see anything here that could be included. In the small library of books I accumulated while contributing to JW-related articles a few years back there was little coverage of Watchtower teachings on the place of women; Beckford (1975, p. 205) and Andrew Holden (2002, p.117) both make passing reference to the Society's patriarchal teaching of the wife's subservience to the husband within marriage and the organisation as well as a general attitude of paternalism, but don't really go beyond that observation. I'm not aware of any more recent sociological study of the JWs, but a search of academic papers may produce something. BlackCab (TALK) 05:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor who proposed the changes seems to have thrown a tantrum and left,[4][5][6][7] which is somewhat disappointing and not particularly consistent with someone saying their contributions are part of a 'graded assessment'. There may be some merit to the import of the original addition, but it may need to stay on the backburner unless/until more appropriate sources come to light.--07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I can assure you that the vandalism-type edits to this talk page were NOT me, and I don’t know why someone decided to act as if they were me, but I do not appreciate it. I haven’t checked my account since my last post, aside from the clearing of my talk page which was unrelated. I was more or less just trying to play around with things on there, as I am new to Wikipedia as a registered user. I restored it though just to avoid confusion. I found out that my assignment was merely the submission of a topic, not acceptance, but as this is a subject I am passionate about, I would still like to help with the process, just in a longer timeframe than what was initially mentioned. Though BlackCab thinks that my submission is not retainable, which is a position I can respect. I do not want to put further work into the submission if that is the case, but I know this came with mixed responses. Thank you all for the feedback, though. -- Skymanmartin (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have experienced JW from the inside and can assure you it is as bad as you say. Worse. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A92A:8DDE:B801:6690 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk pages are not a soapbox or a forum. None of your contributions seem to be about improving article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideas to improve this page.

I think this article should lean slightly more to the side of criticising the Jehovah's witnesses, still keeping a neutral point of view. Also is there a section on what ordinary Jehovah's witnesses think of people who criticise or leave them?

Those are just my ideas though, feel free to politely critique them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystal Kalb (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Asking if there is a particular section suggests you haven't read the article, and is not consistent with the suggestion that the article should be more critical than it is.

Aside from that, the views of 'ordinary Jehovah's Witnesses' would generally not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If you have particular sources in mind, those can be discussed further here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

'Protecting child molesters'

@Meters: @Editor2020: There seems to be some back-and-forth about the lead including the words "protecting child molesters". It is true that 'failing to report abuse' is not the same thing as 'protecting child molesters'. And it is also true that the lead sentence refers to things about which JWs have been accused. It is indeed the case that there have been accusations of the JW leadership having policies that protect child molesters rather than just 'failing to report'. However, the lead already includes the issue relating to child sexual abuse among the summary of criticism, and it does not seem necessary to include the subject in the lead twice, especially if it is just loaded language for 'shock value'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Editor2020 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)